1962 (1) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis.
2. Transposition of Ramjiwan Misir as a petitioner.
3. Allegations of undue influence, coercion, and fraud in the execution of the will.
4. Devolution of the estate under Hindu Law.
5. Bar of limitation.
6. Application of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Consideration of cause of action under Order 33, Rule 5(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. Retrospective operation of Section 15 of the Oudh Estates Act I of 1869 as amended by U.P. Act III of 1910.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis:
The plaintiff, a minor represented by his next friend, filed a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis for declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits. The Subordinate Judge rejected the petition on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. The High Court upheld this decision. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the court should only ascertain whether the allegations in the petition show a cause of action, not whether the claim is likely to succeed. The court emphasized that it should not consider the defenses or conduct an elaborate inquiry into the merits of the case at this stage.

2. Transposition of Ramjiwan Misir as a petitioner:
Ramjiwan Misir, initially supporting the will and adoption claim of the first defendant, later sought to be transposed as a petitioner, alleging coercion in his previous statements. The Subordinate Judge rejected his application, and the High Court upheld this decision, stating that an application to sue in forma pauperis is personal to the applicant. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that an application to sue in forma pauperis is merely a method for a pauper to institute a suit without paying court fees, and Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. The court held that the claim of Ramjiwan Misir to join as a petitioner must be investigated.

3. Allegations of undue influence, coercion, and fraud in the execution of the will:
The plaintiff alleged that the will executed by Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh was void due to undue influence, coercion, and fraud. The Subordinate Judge did not consider these allegations sufficient to show a cause of action. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the plaintiff had set up an alternative case, pleading that even if the will was valid, the estate had become non-taluqdari by virtue of the will and other acts and declarations of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh.

4. Devolution of the estate under Hindu Law:
The plaintiff claimed that the estate devolved upon his grandfather Ganga Dutt Misir, and subsequently upon his father Ramjiwan and himself as co-parceners in a Hindu joint family. The Subordinate Judge and the High Court rejected this claim, stating that the estate did not become partible under Hindu Law. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff had made an alternative claim that the estate had become non-taluqdari, which must be adjudicated at the trial of the suit.

5. Bar of limitation:
The first defendant contended that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the law of limitation. The Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail, focusing instead on whether the petition disclosed a cause of action.

6. Application of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The High Court held that Order 1, Rule 10, which allows the court to strike out or add parties, did not apply to proceedings for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that this rule is applicable in such proceedings, and the claim of a person seeking to join as a petitioner must be investigated.

7. Consideration of cause of action under Order 33, Rule 5(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Subordinate Judge and the High Court rejected the petition on the ground that it did not show a cause of action. The Supreme Court clarified that the court's role is to ascertain whether the allegations, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. The court should not consider defenses or conduct an elaborate inquiry into the merits at this stage.

8. Retrospective operation of Section 15 of the Oudh Estates Act I of 1869 as amended by U.P. Act III of 1910:
The plaintiff argued that the estate had become non-taluqdari by virtue of the will and other acts of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh. The Supreme Court noted that Section 15 of the Oudh Estates Act, as amended, had a partial retrospective operation, but the true effect of the amended section was a complicated question of law that should not be determined at the stage of considering a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and remitted the cases for further proceedings. The court emphasized the need for expeditious handling of the case, noting the significant delays that had already occurred. The appellants were awarded costs for both the Supreme Court and High Court proceedings.